1958 Doubled Die Obverse Lincoln and registry sets.
Southside7
Posts: 79 ✭✭✭
Hello all,
I am curious how others (with interest in Lincoln Cent with major variety registry sets...variety haters can sit this one out, lol) feel about such an esoteric coin being part of a set? I have heard in many places from people whom I feel are not gossips that the true pop of this coin is only 1. Personally every image I have ever seen of any 1958 Doubled Die Obverse is the same coin.
Opinions?
0
Comments
If a variety has a pop of 1, or a known or estimated survival of one, it is not collectible and should not be part of any registry set.
This is why back in the 1950's William Sheldon, MD, author of Penny Whimsy (who introduced the Sheldon grading scale of 1-70, still in widespread use today) labelled certain large cent varieties as "NC"- for non-collectible. There has to be a minimum number of coins extant (more than one) for collectors (more than one collector) to aspire to own one and therefor to complete a set of coins.
I thought there were two known an MS64 and an MS65?
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
I agree. But what minimum number of known graded examples should there be, in order to make a coin part of a registry set?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
That is an interesting question. I think it depends upon the series, and the coin in question. For example, there are only 4 or so Strawberry leaf cents known, (3 are NC-3), yet all EAC members have heard of them and I think including them in a registry set of large cents as PCGS does ("with the four ultra-rarities") is reasonable.
The 1958 doubled die obverse Lincoln cent was discovered relatively recently and is, I think, a fairly obscure coin. As the OP mentioned, there may only be one example known.
In the final analysis, my opinion is there should be at least 3 known specimens to include the variety in a registry set.
I did some searching and I believe these sources are images of two different coins.
https://koinpro.tripod.com/Articles/1958DoubledDieCent.htm
https://www.doubleddie.com/365001.html
Seems like every other picture out there is of the PCGS64 example
Collector, occasional seller
There is more than one known, but I believe they all came from the same source
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Thank you and I’m glad I don’t have to decide what that minimum number should be. But that said, just for fun, if I had to pick a number, (for today, at least) I think I’d go with....10. And I wouldn’t consider an answer of fewer than 6. After all, if you can count the known examples on hand, that doesn’t sound “collectible” to me. Regardless of anyone’s opinion, I think it would make for a fun poll.
By the way, I can’t look it up at the moment, but I think there are two known examples of the 1958 DDO cent.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
10 is at least three so we agree.
There are three known examples with two owners. Stewart Blay owned two, ESM owned the other. Lots of history on these. Search forums.
More specifically, Blay owns a 64rd and 65rd and ESM Peter Miller owns a 64rd. Having said that, Mr. Miller retired his Lincoln cent set and it may be owned by someone else now. Three known, all from the same source.
According to Wexler three are known. To me that means non-collectable.
A little history............
⦁ kevinj Posts: 853 ✭✭✭
February 26, 2018 1:08PM
Kinda of funny reading some of the stories. they leave out a lot of facts
I met Charlie around 1994, I knew Charlie's name as Breen listed him in his Encyclopedia as the source of the 1858
and Wexler met Charlie in the 1980s and included the 1958 DDO in his Lincoln Cent Doubled Die book in the back as
a last minute edition. I wrote extensively about my encounter with Charlie in my Authoritative Reference on Lincoln Cents
with John Wexler. I also spoke to Del about his viewing of the three coins.
I met Charlie at my mother-in-law's house, he had one of the 58s with him, along with other cool error coins.
Charlie claimed that he was a retired Phila cop, which I comfirmed, and he claimed he never worked at the Philadelphia Mint,
which on research, I found he had worked at the Phila Mint in the mid-1940s.
My belief was that Charlie was not working at the Mint in 1958, but had contacts there, where he was able to obtain
the three 1958 doubled die specimens.
Charlie claimed that this was the only specimen he had left, he claimed that he sold one specimen for $1,000 several years
back, which was untrue. I immediately noticed that the marks (dirt) on the coin I photoed were different than on Wexler's
coin. I could have, should have, bought the specimen for probably $8K then, big mistake. Instead contacted Sam Lukes
to sell the coin. Some time after, I met Stewart and we became good friends, I gave Stewart Charlie's contact info, and
Stewart was able to obtain the second specimen, and also became good friends with Charlie, even taking Charlie out to
PCGS one time, which from what I heard, made Charlie's year.
Charlie was a good man, slightly paranoid, but from his error coins, I know he enjoyed looking for coins. Charlie had lied
to me several times, but I believe he had done so to protect the value of the coins, if people knew Charlie admitted to
getting them from someone inside the Mint, they might be worth less, and he could have gotten someone or himself in
trouble. This is why he planted the seed with his 1960 article, then 70s, then showed to Wexler, Del......
I absolutely believe Charlie was able to obtain this coins internally from the Mint.
Most likely, the dies were created, the dies made it to the coining presses, and according to normal procedures,
several are struck, then examined, where the doubling was found, and the die removed, with the coins more than likely
kept by the Coiner and made their way to Charlie.
Of course with the 1955 DDO, there was a rush to strike Lincoln cents based upon several disasters and the need for
small change, which most likely caused the skipping of quality assurance, and when the doubling was found, the supervisor
decided to release the batch of coins rather than melt those coins and all other cents mixed in during that night
Kevin
The Blay reply............
⦁ STEWARTBLAYNUMIS Posts: 2,563 ✭✭✭
February 26, 2018 8:04PM
Kevin j and I have been good friends. Yes he introduced me to the man who had all 3
1958 DDO’s. He is no longer alive.
I did what Kevin and others could not do which was obtain a 1958 DDO. When I got it, it was in an accugrade holder. Now it is in a PCGSMS 65 red holder and is the finest known.
The reason neither my coin or the third specimen is not on coin facts is because I requested
that they not be published.
One does need a 1958 DDO if they need a Registry set of major varieties of Lincoln Cents
1909 - 1958. And DL Hansen lives to complete his set of major variety Lincoln Cents.
And he is complete except for the 1958 DDO
Stewart
I don't understand the logic behind requesting the other two not be published, what purpose does that serve? Something with only 3 extant should be shared with the collecting community.
Collector, occasional seller
I stand corrected, thank you! Those images are certainly of two different specimens. Safe to believe there are at least two.
Personally I like the 8-10 number requirement for any coin to be included in any set that is not "special" for a given esoteric coin. So, as a case in point, I feel the Lincoln registry should have a "special" stand-alone set that includes the 58.
This is a change that could be made and not hurt the financial position of the current owner(s) of the 58(s). Even if 20 more were discovered (which in itself would kill the value) then the set could just go back to including the 58. Just spit balling.
I feel such an esoteric inclusion potentially deters collectors which has an overall negative effect on the coin hobby and business....and both could use all the help available.
In my opinion requiring more specimens invites healthy competitiveness and that's good for every facet of the hobby and coin business. But then again, what the hell do I know, LOL!
All this said...what a bold dream coin to acquire. Kudos to those that have! I wish "late nite Pete" at the mint would have struck-up more than just two or three! Hopefully some day it will be discovered he did.
I guess I was off too. I thought there are two known, but it is three. There must be more out there, but just buried somewhere in sets or rolls.
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
The logic in keeping the quantity a secret is that it increases the chances of obtaining a higher price at the time of a sale. My guess is that you do understand it, but disagree with it.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The quantity isn't being kept secret here, the images of the other two known specimens are.
If the images are being kept secret to hide the true quantity then that would be unethical and manipulating the market.
Collector, occasional seller
You mean I've looked through 20 rolls and their were only 2 to begin with? Rats.
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
To have a complete set of saints you need the Judd1776 & the 1933
There are only one each of those 2 and no complete set has ever been known to exist.
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/gold/20-gold-major-sets/st-gaudens-20-gold-major-varieties-1933-patterns-circulation-strikes-1907/360
(I would argue you need the 8 proofs also but....
)
My Saint Set
Is it possible the US mint could ever offer for sale the remaining swift coins. Just wondering 💭
The 1933 Saints were once owned by Izzy Switt (not Swift).
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Why would Judd 1776 - a pattern - be part of any set of Saints?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Because PCGS lists eight different set compositions for eight different registry categories for Saints and in only one of them is the Judd 1776 required. In other words, they have seven universes to play in for Saints that do not require it, and one that does require it.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
I specialize in the Lincoln Cent and use that registry set "Lincoln Cents with Major Varieties, Circulation Strikes and Proof (1909-Present)" as my reference for a "complete" collection. I am currently only missing 6, knowing that the 58 DDO and probably the 69-S DDO will never be there. I accept the fact that PCGS considers the 58 a "major" variety and should therefore be part of the set. There are actually 37 major varieties included in that registry set if I counted correctly.
Everyone's talking about it. Might as well show it:
Amazing coin, IMHOP.
Pete
Tom, I don’t see how having seven (or any other number of) universes for Saints that don’t require a pattern, justifies requiring it for ANY set. And that’s especially so, considering that it’s unique. For gosh sakes, it’s not even the right size.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
That is one very deeeeep bunny hole if you ever do a forum search for "Langbord Saints" on any coin forum.
The short answer is, not likely
My Saint Set
Only three '58 DDO's.... darn... I have been checking my change and 'take a cent, leave a cent' trays diligently for years looking for one... I wonder if they really did come out of the mint surreptitiously. Oh well, there could be a fourth one out there... That thought is what keeps we incurable treasure hunters looking.... everywhere.... Cheers, RickO
Just FYI:
The "Everyone's talking about it. Might as well show it:" image is the same coin as in one of the links by ChrisH821. So that still leaves confirmed (by more than words) specimens at 2.